LexANIL MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t \< <= [2008] 11 S.C.R. 542 ...; - A ANIL MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . (Civil appeal No.4724 of 2008) B JULY 30, 2008 I .[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] )" .... ' I Administrative Law - Executive action - Judicial review I - Scope of - Adverse entry - Communicated to Appellant, c Dy. Comr[lissioner of Central Excise & Customs - Represen- ,__ tation against - Rejected by Chief Commissioner by detailed speaking order - Further representation to Central Govern- ment also rejected - O.A. by Appellant before Tribunal, con- tending thqt the adverse entry had been made malafide - Dis- D missed-: Writ petition before High Court also dismissed - On appeal, held: Three senior officers considered Appellant's case and rejected the same - Court cannot sit as an appellate au- ~ . . . thority; OVf)f .these orders - Chief Commissioner and Central Government are very high authorities and they considered the representations of Appellant - Moreover, no bias attrib- i E uted to Chief Commissioner or to Central Government. L Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - New Plea - Plea not taken before Tribunal or High Court - Held: Cannot be tak(jn for the first time before Supreme Court. F Appellant was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs. An adverse entry was communicated )a.. "- to him for the year 2000-2001. Against the adverse entry, Appellant filed representation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner. Against the order of Chief Commis- G sioner, Appellant made further representation to the Cen- tral Government, which too was rejected. Appellant filed O.A. before the Administrative Tribunal, contending that 'f ~ the adverse entry had been made malafide. Tribunal re- jected the 0.A. Against the order, Appellant filed writ peti- H 542 ANIL MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 543 & ORS. .... ,._ tion before High Court, which was also dismissed. Hence A '\ the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1.This is not a case where the adverse en- try was not communicated to the Appellant. It was not only B communicated but the Appellant made representation ,>.. ., against the adverse entry, which was considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking order. Further memorial to the Cen- tral Government has also been considered and dismissed. c Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. The Court can- not sit as an appellate authority over these orders. [Para 7) [545-G,H; 546-A-B] 1.2. The appellant submitted that the entries before D 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, __ ,... and hence the isolated entry for 2000 appears to be bi- ased. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal or the High Court, and hence cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time before this Court. If the appel- E lant wanted to take this plea, he could have done it be- fore the Tribunal or the High Court. Even if the entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal or the High Court for summoning of these entries, and the F Tribunal and the High Court could have summoned the ' "" same. However, the appellant filed no such application before the Tribunal for summoning these entries. Hence the appellant has himself to blame. Had the appellant taken such a plea before the Tribunal and the High Court, the G respondent authorities would have had an opportunity to file a reply in rebuttal to this plea. Since the appellant did not take this plea before the Tribunal or the High Court; -y the department had no opportunity to reply to it. Hence one cannot allow this plea to be ta.ken before this Court. H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A [Paras 8,9, 10] [546-C,E-H] 1,3. The Chief Commissioner and the Central Gov- ernment are very high authorities and they considered the representations of the appellant. No bias has been attributed to the Chief Commissioner or to the Central B Government. [Para 11] [547-A] c Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 - re- f~rred to. Case Law Reference AIR 1996 SC 11 referred to Para 7 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2008 D From the final Judgment and Order dated 61312006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. CAT-3526 of 2006 P.N. Puri, Dhira
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.